WHETHER COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE TO STRICT ADVERSARIAL TESTING, BY REASON OF A FICKLE, BARE-BONES 'MERE PRESENCE' THEORY OF DEFENSE, ELEMENTS OF 'CONSENT TO SEARCH' RULE, CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. COUNSEL WAS ALSO GROSSLY INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT ARGUING A FATAL MATERIAL VARIANCE OR CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT ON THE POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE CHARGE, WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTION WERE NOT PROVEN.

Whether counsel's failure to subject the government's case to strict adversarial testing, by reason of a fickle, bare-bones 'mere presence' theory of defense, elements of 'consent to search' rule, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel